Anthony Weiner

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House of Representatives, it is my pleasure to welcome Rabbi Korenblit and thank him for delivering this morning's prayer. Rabbi Korenblit's eloquence this morning was no surprise to those of us in Brooklyn who have come to know him as one of the community's most prominent moral leaders. Since 1997, he has been the Rabbi at Temple Sholom in Southern Brooklyn, after having served congregations in New Jersey and Manhattan. Rabbi Korenblit was ordained at Meor Hatorah Rabbinical College and received advanced rabbinical training at Torah Vodaath Rabbinical Institute, Boston Kolel and Gur Aryeh Institute for Advanced Rabbinical Studies. What has most distinguished the Rabbi's career is his commitment to children, which is matched only by his commitment to his faith. He is not only the Rabbi at Temple Sholom, but he is the principal of the Schwartz Religious School at the Temple. And he spent many years as not only a principal but as a school teacher, camp director and youth group director. He has also written and lectured extensively on educational issues, with a focus on child rearing matters. Untold numbers of young people in our community have grown up to lead healthy spiritual lives because of the influence of Rabbi Korenblit, and I can think of no greater contribution one can make to his community. I am not only pleased to congratulate Rabbi Korenblit on the honor of being chosen to deliver this morning's prayer, but I wanted to congratulate his shul, Temple Sholom, on their 50th anniversary. For more than a generation, Temple Sholom has served the religious and social needs of the Mill Basin and Bergen Beach communities, and I wish them many more decades of continued vitality. In closing, it is also my pleasure to welcome this day the Rabbi's wife, Daniela Reik, who is with us today, his three daughters, Haviva, Eliora, Emuna, and his mother-in-law, Mignon. Thank you very much, Rabbi.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his great leadership and the chairman of the committee. Mr. Speaker, the way we treat the victims of rape in this country is a crime. Evidence that is collected at crime scenes often sits for years, sometimes beyond the statute of limitations, completely untouched by human hands. When that victim goes into a hospital emergency room, frequently they sit in triage with dozens of other people for hours at a time waiting to be examined by someone with no experience in such cases. With this legislation, we change both of those things. More than 350,000 rape kits, evidence, sits on warehouse shelves throughout the country. We had as many as 16,000 in New York City, until the city began its own program of trying to analyze that evidence. The technology exists, quite frankly, to match victims' DNA collected at crime scenes with those of criminals. We can make hits and we can often put people away; 154 cold cases have resulted in cases being solved, and in 204 more cases, we know who did it. And now it is just a matter of finding that perpetrator of a crime. Can you imagine being a person who has been victimized in that way, having that crime scene created, having the evidence taken in the most invasive of ways, only to learn that it is sitting and sitting and sitting without any effort to analyze it. Why do we have this problem? One word, money. Now the Federal Government, for the second time in this House we are passing legislation to deal with that backlog, $75 million over the next 5 years. For those of us who have become concerned that in the past money has been grabbed by the States, never makes it to the city, this allows cities to make direct applications. This is an opportunity for us to bring justice to thousands of women. This is an opportunity for us to allow women who have been victimized by rape not to be victimized a second time by a system that does not pay enough attention to it. I would point out to my colleagues that one of the indexed crimes is going up while all the others is going down, and that is crimes against women, rape. That is because people who perpetrate rape, we know, do it again and again and again and again. One crime we solve may stop seven women from being victimized in the future. That is why these provisions are so important. We all see DNA evidence through the lens of our own interests. I see it as both what my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), says and through my lens as someone who cares about civil liberties, but also wants these crimes solved.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just address some of the brief comments that have been made so far. First of all, if I had a dime or a dinar for every time I have heard that the Saudis were thinking about changing, I would be a very wealthy man. The fact of the matter is, the Saudis talk a very good game. Whenever there is a flash point of terrorism that comes back to them, they say, oh, we have changed. They have become professionals at dividing up the royal family and having a handful go talk about peace while a handful talk about terror. Let me just say they are not just talking and this is not just a thing of the past. As recently as 6 months ago, it was revealed that the Saudi royal family was paying bounties to terrorists, bounties to terrorists. I would also point out to my distinguished friend from California who said that the timing is not right, well, to be honest with my colleagues, that is exactly the same argument that was made on this floor during the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The timing is now. I would point out that we cast the vote on that amendment which was narrowly defeated early in the morning of the day that the report came out on who was behind the terrorist attack on September 11. And while the 28 pages were not released, and I have not seen them, let me say this: the Saudi Arabians had a role in the attack on our country on September 11. Every arrow points that way. Frankly, now that we have that information, we should act upon it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying this: This is an opportunity for all of us in this Chamber to express in the strongest possible terms, and, frankly, it is not that strong, it may wind up costing a net zero dollars to the Saudis, but in strong terms we can show how fundamentally upset we are at the way that Saudi Arabia has acted with two faces. One is the side that they show us in the TV commercials and the meetings and the negotiations and in the well- orchestrated press conferences. On the other side are the facts. We all too often in this part of the world judge people based on what they say rather than what they do. And the Saudis should see what we do in this House. No more aid to the Saudi Arabians.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am offering an amendment that I doubt will provide much controversy for this House. It is something that mirrors language that was inserted in the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill this year. It essentially says that no funds allocated in this bill should go to the countries Libya, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. The only change from section 507 of past bills that we have done is that we add Saudi Arabia to that list. It should be no mystery to anyone in this House why we would be taking this action. First of all, let me make it very clear that there is no direct funding allocated to Saudi Arabia, just many, many pots of money that could conceivably fund that kingdom. I could go through the list; it is quite substantial. We have a Saudi Arabian Government that supports terrorism, supports it overseas, funds homicide bombers in Israel. We have a Saudi Government that exports the type of hatred that leads to terror with Wahabbism throughout the world. We have a Saudi Arabian Government that was directly connected to September 11. Simply put, there is no reason there should be a single dime of U.S. taxpayer dollars going to that kingdom. Putting it on a purely economic level, one that I think will appeal to just about everyone in this House, why would we offer even a hint of a suggestion that we would provide funding to the richest nation on Earth at the time when we are struggling to pay our bills as well? The legislation is excruciatingly simple. It simply says no funds, no authority can go to these rogue nations and adds Saudi Arabia to that list, where they rightfully deserve to be. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, back home in New York, Mets fans are coping with the retirement of New York Mets announcer Bob Murphy. Murph was an original Met, having called Mets games since their inception in 1962, 42 seasons ago. He saw, and brought home to us, every peak and trough in between. It's hard to explain the special bond that Mets fans have with Bob Murphy. But it is akin to a long-term friendship that begins in early childhood, suffers with you through adolescence, struggles with you through young adulthood, and triumphs with you through maturity. Friends who spend every summer day and night together, and whose hearts ache to be reunited during the long, cold winter. As children, Bob Murphy tucked us in to bed at night. He sat with us in the classroom as we smuggled a radio into school. He rode with us as we sat in traffic. No matter what else was transpiring in our life, we could always turn to Bob Murphy bringing us a routine game in the middle of June, and be put totally at ease. Bob Murphy had that calming effect on us. Chicken pox, report cards, girlfriends all came and went--but through the years, Bob Murphy never left our side. He shared those moments with us all while bringing us to the edge of our seat, sharing with us the emotional roller coaster that comes with being a Mets fan. He brought us laughter; he brought us tears (in the early years, often at the same time). In their history, the Mets have won two World Series and four pennants. But, nestled between those accomplishments, they have suffered at some of the leanest years that baseball has ever seen. All the while, our emotions likewise ran the gamut; and there was Bob Murphy to share them with us. His work behind the mike was as good as they come. One of my favorite calls remains the wild pitch thrown by Bob Stanley in the sixth game of the 1986 World Series. Everyone remembers the Bill Buckner error from that game. But, in truth, the biggest moment of that inning came a few pitches earlier, when Stanley's pitch to the backstop allowed Kevin Mitchell, the tying run, to score. Murph's succinct call was perfect. The excitement in his voice was unmistakable, and he let his brevity and his repetition indicate the profoundness of the moment. ``Gets away! Gets away! Here comes Mitchell! Here comes Mitchell! Tie game! Tie game . . .!'' And with that last ``tie game'' his voice trailed off--or maybe it was drowned out--to the loudest eruption that Shea Stadium has ever heard. We're going to miss him. Bob Murphy gave a lot to us, more than we can ever thank him for. But today, on behalf of my colleges in the House of Representatives, I wish Bob Murphy the happiest of recaps to a tremendous career.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the attention of this body to an event that took place last week. On September 12, 2003, some of the finest citizens from around the world assembled in Philadelphia, the birthplace of our democracy, to recognize the first ``Interdependence Day''. This historic event brought together public, civic and corporate leaders, distinguished academics and diplomats, and interested citizens and students, to reflect together on the fact that the world is becoming more and more connected. In a global climate that is too often rife with conflict, the participants of Interdependence Day examined ways to best diffuse the tensions that exist between nations and cultures. Indeed, the choice of September 12th for Interdependence Day was made in the hope that the symbolism of ``the day after'' would encourage citizens from around the world to see that terrorism and war are also opportunities for civic renewal and global cooperation. Those in attendance had the opportunity to sign the Declaration of Interdependence--a document affirming the interdependent character of the post-modern world--to ponder questions of the relationship of independence to interdependence, and to celebrate the creation of an important 21st century commemorative event. Interdependence Day events took place this year not just in Philadelphia, but in Budapest and in a number of schools and colleges in the United States. By the year 2004, the sponsors at the Democracy Collaborative expect to have many more venues. Mr. Speaker, I commend those who came together to celebrate Interdependence Day in Philadelphia, and those around the country and the world who are working to see that that horrors of September 11 are never repeated.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WEINER. The only state that is being added is Saudi Arabia. The other ones were already in the bill.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is the last of the amendments. Let me conclude by offering my thanks to the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for some very fine work. For those Members who heard the recitation of the amendment and heard that none of the funds shall be appropriated or otherwise made available for Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Syria, you might say, how could there possibly be any controversy in that? Frankly, the question is should Saudi Arabia be included in that list? And I think, frankly, like the previous two speakers, the argument is not why should money be struck, the argument should always be made why should we be providing funding? You are going to hear from opponents of this amendment that, well, the Secretary of State and the Department of State feel sure, certain, that after years and years of Saudi Arabia exporting terrorism, after clear links to September 11, after connections with them exploiting Wahabism, after efforts continually stymied by the United States to get the Saudis to stop this behavior, we still should provide them some funding because maybe, just maybe they will get better later on. We have this desire, and it is a fervent one, to find a player in the Middle East that will turn out to be a true ally. We have it in Israel and perhaps some at the State Department believe they have it in Saudi Arabia. But the record is simply different. The record shows that over 50 percent of the funding for Hamas comes from Saudi Arabia. The record shows that the Saudi Arabian government provides cash awards of over $5,000 for terrorists in Israel. The record shows that terrorists who recently massacred 38 civilians on a Tel Aviv highway were found to be armed with rifles bearing Saudi army markings and serial numbers. We know, of course, in recent months, thanks to some of the fine work of our Intelligence Community that there are strong connections between the Saudi government and what happened on September 11. We all know that 15 of the 19 bombers came from Saudi Arabia. But we have now also learned that the wife of the Saudi ambassador was providing cash grants to two of the suicide bombers in the months leading up. We now know that a Saudi intelligence agent had been hosting 2 of the 9/11 hijackers. We also know as a matter of fact, absolute fact, for more than a month after September 11, the Saudi government refused to freeze Osama bin Laden's accounts where so many of his assets were kept. Yet the Department of State sent a letter today saying that Saudi Arabia is one of the first countries to condemn the September 11 attacks. We have to learn the lesson about Saudi Arabia. We cannot watch what they say. They do a brilliant job saying things to us, millions of dollars in lobbyists each year. We will go home tonight and there will be ads on our TV here in Washington what a great country Saudi Arabia is, all while they fund terrorism. No one needs to be told that in our districts back home. It is something that we all understand. The audacity of Mr. Burns, the Assistant Secretary of State, to say that my amendment might undermine Saudi Arabia's cooperation in dealing with Israeli-Palestinian peace. They are the foremost, number one funder of terrorist bombings in Israel. I have one final point. Why are we giving money to one of the richest nations on Earth for anything? It is simply insane. So this is actually a very easy vote and I would encourage my colleague, the chairman, to accept this amendment. All it does is does what is intuitive to all of us. Let us judge nations by how they act. If the Saudis do turn over a new leaf, if they stop saying the right thing when they come visit Crawford and then going and do fund-raisers for suicide bombers on television, then maybe we can come back later and decide whether we want to give some of our taxpayer dollars to the perhaps richest nation on God's Earth. To do it today is simply wrong. We have to begin to learn the lessons of some of these nations in the Middle East. They are simply duplicitous. This is our opportunity, and I would point out to my colleagues, this is our opportunity to tell the Saudi Arabian government we expect a change in behavior. This is our only opportunity to tell our colleagues at the State Department, stop looking for the unicorn, start looking at reality; and the reality is that the Government of Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that we all know oppresses its people, we all know that is among the exporters of the worst types of Muslim teaching that encourages the death of Christians and Jews, let us tell them with this small message that we are not going to have it anymore. For those of my colleagues who think there are hundreds and billions and millions of dollars in the bill, it is $105,000 in two programs. The two programs are to permit the Saudi government to purchase military training in the United States, something I am sure they can afford, and to provide IMET to Saudi Arabia to ensure continued high level of Saudi attendance at those military things. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for the fine work they have done on this bill under difficult circumstances with many challenges. After September 11, President Bush, I think, articulated our national policy very well by saying that nations are either for us in the war on terrorism or against us. I supported the President then, and I believe we must be tireless in pursuit of terrorists and those who sponsor terrorism overseas. I rise today because I believe we need to make a change in this bill to fully live up to that promise. I suspect that most of my colleagues know the record of Saudi Arabia; but today I will be offering an amendment that strikes what is arguably, and agreed, a very small amount of money in this bill for Saudi Arabia and says that under this bill there shall be none for that country. For many of my colleagues and for many Americans, it is intuitive why we would take this action. They would probably be surprised to learn that even a small amount of funding is going to that nation. We know, for example, as a matter of fact, that Saudi Arabia, far from being a force for peace in the Middle East, has been systematically exporting terrorism. Testimony heard in this Congress said that more than 50 percent of Hamas funding comes from Saudi Arabia despite increasing calls from President Bush to the kingdom to halt that funding. The Saudi Arabian government reportedly pays $5,333 to each family of what they call martyrs killed trying to murder Israelis. And in the spring of 2002, U.S. troops in Sarajevo found in the office of the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia documents that proved Saudi funding of the Hamas terrorist group to enable it to produce a short-range missile called the Qassam. We also know that increasingly it has become clear that there are Saudi connections to 9/11. Far from being a force to help us crack down on those that committed this crime, we all know, frankly, that it took the Saudis more than a month to even freeze Osama bin Laden's assets to fund his terrorist network. A known Saudi intelligence agent, Omar al-Bayoumi, hosted two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, during the summer of 2000. Al-Bayoumi met the two men in Los Angeles and directed them to a Muslim community in San Diego and even wrote a check for their apartment deposits. The wife of the Saudi ambassador to the United States transferred $15,000 in 1998 and then $2,000 a month to a Saudi resident, Osama Bassnan. During the same period, Mr. Bassnan and another man apparently were receiving Saudi financial support providing financial support for two of the hijackers on September 11. I would also say that it is very clear that on many occasions when the Saudi Arabian government had a chance to offer true help to the United States of America, they have not done it. We know their record in the investigation after the 1996 Khobar bombing attack. Assistant FBI Director Robert Bryant said at the time that the Saudi government had prevented the FBI investigators from interviewing any civilians who witnessed or may have been involved in the Khobar Towers bombing. In 1995, the Saudi government prevented us, the United States, from apprehending a Hezbollah leader by preventing us from intercepting a plane that he was on. Some will argue here today, and I have heard it frankly continuously over the course of the last decade, that now the Saudi Arabia that we see is a different one, they have changed, they have come around. Now they really, really want to help us. In fact, the Department of State, Assistant Secretary Burns, writes a letter today to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) talking about how Saudi Arabia was among the first countries to condemn the September 11 attack. Is that not just terrific given how closely tied they were to that attack itself? I do not need to remind anyone here that 15 of the 19 bombers of my city, attackers that killed over 2,800 people, were Saudis. I do not need to tell you how they have been exporting terrorism to the Middle East again and again and are doing it today. But yet we still hear from the State Department, maybe if we give them one more chance. Well, I agree. Let us give them one more chance. Let us give them more than that. But there should not be one dime of U.S. aid going for any reason to Saudi Arabia. So what is in this bill? I believe it is a very small amount, perhaps the chairman could tell me, I think it is $25,000. That is all. What does that money do? It defrays the cost for Saudi intelligence officers to come here and work with our officers in our academies and in our intelligence-gathering community. That is terrific. Let us keep doing that. Let us try to bring them around. But let us not be fooled. Let them pay their own freight for that until they start to act like a nation that truly is going to work to end terrorism rather than to spread it. It is a shame that we should be providing any funding here. I defy any of my colleagues to come to this floor and articulate a record, even William Burns, the Assistant Secretary of State, arguing so fervently against this amendment, I do not know what the French for chutzpah is, has it that Saudi Arabia has been helpful on issues, including the pursuit of Palestinian-Israeli peace. I would ask the chairman and just inform the House that if he insists on the point of order, I plan to offer the exact same language that the full section has at the appropriate place in the bill, or we can make this the sum and substance of my presentation. Point of Order

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WEINER. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WEINER. I would argue, Mr. Chairman, that this is not in fact a limiting amendment. The language that limits is already in the bill. It says none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this act shall be obligated or expended, that is limiting language I have read so far, to finance directly any assistance or reparations to Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Iran or Syria, and then it goes on to say ``provided.'' I am not adding any more limitations than the committee has already added. All I am doing is adding another nation that comes under that limitation. The limiting language, I would argue, is already in the base bill.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I do not ascribe venal intent on the part of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) or the chairman. This was switched at the last moment. But given the idea that a UC is supposed to be something that is done by a consensus, and it is clear there were Members on that side that were shut out, Members on this side, including myself, and the gentleman from Vermont wants to make a technical correction, if the true intent was to create a consensus decision on limiting time, something that I support, perhaps the best way to do this is to do this: Now that everyone is on notice, have the committee rise, in the Committee of the Whole, and simply do a new UC.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee and the full committee for the work they have done on this bill. We stand ready to pass this appropriation bill that contains an egregious error that not only runs counter to a majority in this Congress, but it runs counter to the views of the Attorney General. The Attorney General, when asked about the COPS program during his confirmation hearing, said, ``Let me say that I think the COPS program has been successful. The purpose of the COPS program was to demonstrate to local police departments that if you put additional people, feet on the street, that crime will be affected and that people will be safer and more secure. We believe that the COPS program demonstrated that conclusively.'' That was June 5, 2003, not at his confirmation hearing. Well, in addition to Mr. Ashcroft, 224 Members of this body have signed on to legislation that I and others are cosponsoring to reauthorize the COPS program. The COPS program, quite literally, gets the Federal Government off the sidelines in the war against crime, the war against terrorism, and hires police officers in all our communities. This bill that we are about to pass contains zero money, zero dollars and zero cents, for the most important component, which is the hiring component. There are a few dollars to keep the COPS office up and running to administer the last remaining contracts that are out there, but let us keep in mind what it is that the program has already accomplished: 110,000 cops are on the beat in more than 12,000 communities. And this is the most democratic, with a small ``d'', of programs in that it is spread almost equally throughout the country. More than 82 percent of the grants under the COPS program have gone to departments serving populations of 50,000 persons or less. Three hundred communities around this country now have police departments that did not even have them until the COPS program was put into place. Well, not only do those of us in Congress believe in this program, at least those 224 of us who have cosponsored the reauthorization of the COPS program, but the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Police Chiefs, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs Association and on and on. This is our opportunity to fund that program. This is our chance to say that in addition to supporting it and cosponsoring the legislation, we also want to provide the funding for it. Mr. Chairman, I have the strange suspicion that despite the great success of this program, despite the fact that every day our leaders are standing up and saying that homeland security begins in our hometowns, despite the fact that every day we have a red, a yellow, a fuchsia, a teal alert telling our officers at home they better be on alert, we are eliminating perhaps the most successful anticrime program in the history of the Federal Government. And, today, in this bill, we do precious little to breathe life into it. I had intended to offer an amendment to move a few dollars, not a lot, but a few dollars into the spending program for the hiring of additional COPS police officers. It had the support of some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who were going to offer the amendment with me. Let me say there is more that we should do than just reinstitute the hiring program. We should respond to some of my colleagues, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, who have had criticism of the program. They said that it provided hiring funding, and then it gradually faded away and some departments did not want to hire any more officers. That is why my reauthorization bill would allow them to use the funds under the COPS program to backfill existing officers. Secondly, my amendment and the reauthorization bill, would it be passed, would allow them to invest in technology, in police scanners, surveillance devices, and the like. This is one of those instances that, unfortunately, are not too uncommon in this body, where a majority, a strong majority of Members feel that something should be done and a small minority of Members prevent it from being done. This was our opportunity to do it, and I would have liked the opportunity to offer it. I should point out that my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), is a cosponsor of the bill to reauthorize it; my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), a cosponsor of the bill to reauthorize the COPS program. And were we to have the opportunity to have a hearing, a debate, and a vote on it in the Committee on the Judiciary, I am quite certain it would pass. Our colleagues on the other side of this building, in the other body, they too have demonstrated their support for it. They have more than 50 cosponsors there as well. Let this bill be heard. Let the COPS program live to see another day. This is neither a Republican nor a Democratic initiative. Police officers, I would point out, tend to in many, many cases be Republican voters. But that is not what this is about. This is about a program that worked, that had the misfortune of having President Clinton's name in front of it.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and others with whom we have consulted on trying to come up with a way to answer some of the fundamental questions. First of all, I think that we can be of agreement because, frankly, every Member, including the distinguished chairman and ranking member, have said that yes, the total number of dollars is probably not enough and this is going to be an ongoing process to see to it that we do allocate enough money to this because, frankly, we have no choice. I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky, the gentleman from Minnesota, the gentleman from Wisconsin, and others who have worked so hard to get that number as high as we can get it. There also, I believe, can be no other answer but yes to the question, do some areas have greater costs than others? Are there greater costs in ports of California, in States like New York? I will give Members an example. It is costing New York City $13 million a week to deal with the needs of homeland security. A week. If you drive over the Brooklyn Bridge at 3 o'clock in the morning on a weekday morning, you will find both lanes inside closest to the stanchion with a fixed patrol car sitting there all day, all night, because of the national security threat that exists. That is more police man-hours than many police departments, and that is something that New York is absorbing because of these risks. Another question that is a little tougher to answer, but I know how I would answer it, is who should decide how homeland security funds get divided? Should it be my distinguished colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations and those of us in this body, or should it be Secretary Ridge and the administration? I vote for the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from Minnesota and others here in this body, but I think we should keep in mind what Secretary Ridge has said. Secretary Ridge has said very clearly, in fact, just within the last 24 hours, that he believes that the present way we are distributing the money should be changed. He said ``distributing those dollars according to the old formula, I don't believe we get maximum security for the dollars that are expended at the national level.'' This is continuing the quote: ``I'd like to see the numbers significantly higher than $500 million.'' He goes on to say, ``I think every State should be given a certain amount of money,'' a sentiment that I agree with, ``but at the end of the day, I do believe that there are some communities and regions that need more money.'' Continuing the quote: ``I have concerns about the distribution formula, [where] We just basically send out dollars to States and localities on a formula that doesn't consider infrastructure, doesn't consider anything other than population.'' I do not believe that is where are we at this House, and frankly I do have great confidence in my colleagues deciding how to distribute the money, but we do have to recognize that this is not just a New York City issue, as the chairman alluded to previously. This is an issue that affects about 30 different States and localities all around the country. The gentleman from Texas articulated the needs of his district. Others have come to this floor and talked about their cities and States. The fact remains that there are certain places that unfortunately are more likely today to be targets of terrorist attack than others and have to take steps that cannot be avoided. If for no other reason, many of the trials that are being held of those that are accused of terrorism are being held in New York City. Just the enforcement costs in Washington, D.C. and suburban Virginia, in New York City, in Chicago, Illinois in one case, just those costs are much higher than they are elsewhere. There has been a large increase in the overall basic formula grant, and I think the committee deserves great credit for this. What this amendment seeks to do is take the $700 million that was allocated last year, increase the $500 million to that $700 million. That still provides a $700 million increase in the basic formula grant, and I believe that that is a healthy step. I, however, want to say in closing, I want to close the way I began, I do believe that the chairman in his colloquy that he entered into earlier has clearly articulated his desire to get the money where it needs to go. I do believe that this is an amendment that gets the chairman and gets our House to that place.